Topic: controversial / possibly dangerous proposals for bitcoin - page 2. (Read 354 times)

fun fact
signatures are now called witnesses
segregating them is actually one of the features segwit enabled nodes can offer
they even have 2 txid's and merkle trees for exactly this function

(it really does pay to read some code and understand the word "segretated witness")

yes
unupgraded nodes that do not understand segwit will have a stripped block not containing the witness(signatures)
(the stripped blocks are filtered to non-segwit nodes from a segwit enabled node doing the stripping for the non segwit node)

it required alot of cludgy code to do this "backward compatible " data striping feature, where it required segwit enabled nodes to do the stripping if they had unupgraded peers connected to them.

pushing the unupgraded peers to the outer hops of the relay network where they dont get to be the normal class of nodes validating everything


..
oh and NO one said all blocks dont have signatures any more. NO one
its just another misdirection social game.
the actual debates were that non segwit nodes lost their "full node status" by being handled differently given a different lump of data than a segwit enabled node got

More dangerous than proposals are the people, more specifically the "hooligans" who only create chaos and effectively prevent technical discussion from growing. The best example is 2017 where we saw scores of them on the internet spreading misinformation at the same time. To this day some people think SegWit "removes" signatures from blocks because of it!

5 controversial dangerous proposals are and were:

1. changing the consensus mechanism from consent by mass survey(dictionary and byzantine generals solution definitions), to instead activate with less network peer requirement, where its a "abstinence is consent" model, introduced by a core'poral rather then any decentralised 'generals'

2. having mechanisms to reject blocks, and ban peers that do not flag for an activation prior to activation. this falsifies any consensus(consent) count

3. proposal of so called "privacy features" such as:
a. to break the UTXO spend chain of custody movement(remove taint via non accountable tx format) - removing the proof of origins means it cant be proved coins were originally mined, thus opening up risk of creating new coin outside the mining process and also taking coin without ownership permission
b. wanting to put features like mimblewimble on the mainnet rather than a safer 'extended'(side/sub) network/chain

4. increasing the shareable units.
this requires bad code to separate legacy/native value from future format value where the cross overs could bug and cause new coin creation or coin destruction out of circulation, changes the halving cycles and also changes the ultimate maximum units ever mined rules

5. proposing YEARS ago that subnetworks will be the payment utility of all bitcoiners to save the mainnet from being the payment network. whilst years later those subnetworks have still not met their promises to meet the functionality nor capability to handle real usage beyond pizza value amounts, and even those are not 100% guaranteed, secure. yet we still have to "wait and see" before scaling bitcoin (scaling not leaping)

To me the most outrageous proposal was for bitcoin to abandon PoW and go PoS, like ETH. This should, and I hope that it will, never happen as it would make bitcoin more centralized and more vulnerable to attacks. IMO in the long run ETH users will come to a conclusion that this was a bad idea and it will cost them some money if they hold these tokens.

Probably second on that list would be what BCH was pushing which was a fork and block size change that would result in abandoning the current chain that we're in.

Layer 2 upgrades don't concern me at all as long as the main protocol stays the same.

Yeah, I think so. I think the community cares a great deal in which direction Bitcoin goes. If the community didn't care as much, I don't think we'd have as much discussion as we do here. However, the Bitcoin community is much larger than what we've got here, and there's constant discussions on how we can improve it. They might not be right, but you can see that people are motivated to improve Bitcoin.

On the flip side, that also means people don't want to see the wrong decisions made. Ultimately, when it comes to big changes, and therefore hard forks the people get to decide what they want to adopt, and what they don't.

Division isn't always a bad thing. It means, that all alternatives are being considered. It's those with the strongest argument or merit to their idea that should succeed. It means, we haven't got just a handful of people making the decisions, but hundreds or thousands of people contributing to the future of development. I would rather have a debate when it comes to important changes, so that all angles are considered, than having a one way discussion where no one else proposes any other ideas.

Well, debate is the only way to go.... without it, we will fall into the same toxic situation where we have people with hidden agendas trying to do a power grab on Bitcoin development and implementation of harmful ideas. (BCash pushers)

I watched the whole fork battle ..back in the day.. and I saw the division it caused in the community, but that is unfortunately what the whole consensus idea is about. (Bitcoin BTC eventually came out on top.... and we stayed in good hands) 

core dont care because their proposals are now all "backward compatible" meaning those that dont upgrade just get a passive, stripped version which just lets new features in as "is valid" without doing full verification

remember how much ceremony and promotion was needed to hype up of taproot proposal to get people interested to upgrade just to activate taproot.. nope? coz there was none.
it didnt need a majority of users to upgrade to activate it..  core bypassed what you speak of..

core have flipped consensus upside down. they have not used satoshis 2009-2016 version of consensus since 2017
(the 2009-16 true version of consensus was a byzantine generals solution.. now its a single 'core'poral in charge)

now new features are treated as "is valid" and accepted without rejection. whereby un-upgraded nodes are not allowed to say no and prevent activation. they instead are pushed out to the edges of the network, and handed data thats stripped or set to just blind accept. and are not completely validating full data.  or rejected off the network,
where they if they choose.. they can upgrade just to again start validating full data that has been pushed into activation without a consensus (consent by mass survey) event of majority activation principles

The community definitely cares simply because they have the incentive to care, and the community decides in the end which proposals end up being implemented to Bitcoin Core because the community decides which Bitcoin Core version to run.

most of the popular sub/side networks are not bitcoin only features

they are bridge networks allowing multiple mainnet blockchain value to be offramped. taking users away from using the mainnets of multiple blockchains and into another network of having to trust their value with

take a few examples
the ones phished as "is bitcoin" can bridge to multiple networks like litecoin and others.. and DO..(there is proof, so not a myth)

but the amount of liquidity pegged to these bitcoin phished bridges(LN/liquid) is far less then say alot of ERC protocol subnetwork bridge to bitcoin

for instance
wbtc has 173,000 btc pegged
btc.b has 5700 btc pegged

however LN has only 5272
and liquid has 3567
..

many people are soo irritated and peed off with the 7 years of waiting for the supposed promised of "LN is the solution to scaling utility" and how flawed and broken those promises are. they end up using other bridges that are phishing with within the ethereum pond

and i am not going to get into the silly hypocrisy of doomads reverse play on his own politics which are the opposite of what he is trying to be onside with now.
he is too late to pretend he is for the things he now suggests after years of being oppositional to it

There are several proposals for changes to Bitcoin that some people regard as controversial or even harmful. Some examples include:

Covenants: This proposal would allow for the creation of smart contracts that can be enforced by the Bitcoin network, but some critics argue that it would introduce too much complexity and could be used for malicious purposes.

Drivechains: This proposal would allow for the creation of sidechains that are pegged to the value of Bitcoin, but some critics argue that it would introduce too much centralization and could be used to attack the Bitcoin network.

TARO (on LN): Some criticisms of this protocol are that it is not a true layer 2 solution, it introduces more centralization, and it could be used to attack the network.

Critics to LN and Liquid: Some people argue that these networks are not true layer 2 solutions, they introduce more centralization, and they could be used to attack the Bitcoin network

It's important to note that these are just a few examples and there are many different proposals being discussed within the Bitcoin community. Some people have strong opinions on these proposals, both positive and negative. It's important for people with technical knowledge to openly debate the pros and cons of these proposals so that lay people can be more informed and make decisions.
As you pointed out, it's important for the bitcoin community to be vigilant and cautious about changes to the protocol, especially those that could potentially harm Bitcoin in the long run. The success of Bitcoin ultimately depends not only on the success of the underlying technology, but also on the strength of the social layer, made up of bitcoiners, node operators, miners, developers, educators, and end users.

Do they care about what others propose?
Should anyone care what they are doing even if it leads to centralization, if we can't actually stop them?
So bitcoin if centralized, #fork and dump the centralized chain.

I remember the blocksize being increased was a big issue and big discussion at the time.

Any examples of when developers have been dismissive afaik they are not that involved in the community here on the forums? Is this in the mailing list that they are dismissive?  

Most of the time.the devs keep quiet and seem dismissive about things. At the same time, there's other things coming down the pipeline to replace those ideas.

One of the devs posted a megathread here in 2015 (iirc) about whether blocksize should be increased to 4mb. In 2017 it was realistically enacted due to segwit being introduced and allowing blocks to become that big.

Most suggestions of smart contracting will likely go away if bridges improve or if bitcoin gets its own additional layers (there's no reason someone can't develop a PoS token on bitcoin with its own consensus mechanism).

Further blocksize increases can be obtained from taproot and mimble wimble (there will likely be other ways too to improve throughput).

I believe that the most dangerous proposals are the ones which offer a trade-off with decentralization.

AFAIK, decentralization  must be protected at all costs, and this is the one thing that makes bitcoin valuable and useful.

It's a difficult line to walk.  On the one hand we want free, open and honest discussion.  But on the other hand, it would be wrong to produce an echo chamber or any form of gatekeeping.  There are also potential pitfalls surrounding collusion and corruption.  If those deemed to have sufficient technical knowledge could be bribed or influenced into pushing certain ideas, that could pose a real problem.  At the end of the day, we are effectively talking about money.  And nothing corrupts more.  I'd also hate to see things devolve into a 'cult of personality' where it turns everything into some sort of popularity contest, which happens all too often in politics, for example.

To be honest, this forum already serves as a collection of "cautious bitcoiners that are able to resist code changes", so I'm not sure we need much else beyond this and all the other varieties of social media out there.  

Controversy is probably inevitable, but it all gets sorted out in the end.  I might come across as overly philosophical or trite here, but that's pretty much what the consensus mechanism is for.  Prolonged infighting usually only delays what was always going to happen in the end anyway.  And it is ultimately a good thing that all ideas are challenged and not simply waved through unchecked.  Even if it gets a little out of hand sometimes.  Either enough people move forward together with a new proposal, or the status quo remains.  

What bitcoin proposals do you regard as controversial or even harmful ? And why?
These proposals can be both at layer 1 or at above layers (ex: TARO on LN)

For example, I've seen people being strongly opposed to proposal such as covenants and drivechains. I'm don't have a stablished opinion on them, so I'd like to see others' opinions on the topics, be it positive or negative.

I'm starting to notice moderate tension on some bitcoin communities i participate in (twitter, telegram, youtube) regarding proposals to change bitcoin (those 2 topics, as well as other ones) and to extend it on above layers (ceticism regarding lightning network and liquid network, heavy critics to TARO protocol). After reading Blocksize War, it kinda felt that in 5-10 years we could have another "civil war"

I think we need a strong social layer of cautious bitcoiners that are able to resist code changes that promote hidden agendas and could possibly harm bitcoin in the long run. To do so, those with technical knowledge should openly debate the pros and cons of proposals to change/improve Bitcoin (be it at layer 1, be it at layer 2,3,...) so that lay people can be more informed to take decisions. The success of bitcoin ultimately depends not on the success of layer 1, but on the strength of layer 0, the social layer (bitcoiners, node operators, miners, developers, educators, end users, etc...)